A proper environmentalism focused on human flourishing

Pigweed and Crowhill drink and review Pigweed’s Imperial Amber Ale while they listen to a new performance by the Ben Franklin Players. Then they discuss Earth Day and environmentalism.

People today believe the world is bad and getting worse. But if you measure the planet by its ability to promote human flourishing, Earth is getting better all the time. We should be very happy about that! But instead, people think there’s some awful crisis going on.

The engine for all this prosperity is energy, and practically speaking, that means fossil fuels. Or, to put it simply, more fossil fuel use means more human flourishing. It means fewer people in grinding poverty.

Humans should care for the environment so they can promote a better life for humans. That should be the focus of our environmentalism.

7 thoughts on “A proper environmentalism focused on human flourishing”

  1. QUOTE: People today believe the world is bad and getting worse. But if you measure the planet by its ability to promote human flourishing, Earth is getting better all the time.

    Aren’t both true…some aspects of the world are getting better and some are getting worse?

    1. I’m sure it’s always true that some things are better and some are worse, but the key thing is how you define the terms. If you define “better” as better for humans, than things are getting much, much better, with maybe a few things getting worse.

      1. QUOTE: If you define “better” as better for humans, than things are getting much, much better, with maybe a few things getting worse.

        Even with using humanity, it seems more complex than your statement. It’s conceivable that one could develop a list of both “declines” and “improvements”…possibly possessing similar amounts of declines as improvements. For instance:

        Declines
        • Pollution
        • Divorce rate (from being rare to being expected)
        • Procreation (lower birth rates)
        • Morality

        Improvements
        • Communications
        • Healthcare/cures for previously fatal diseases
        • Transportation
        • Education

        In reality, it’s likely that they are not equal. Yet, I question if one category significantly outweighs the other. On what basis is it determined that improvements significantly outweigh the declines and who determines that?

          1. So, I’ll see your “fewer starving” and raise you…substance abuse/additions, debt, massive traffic and obesity. As you can see, each side can be added to readily. It still doesn’t resolve the fundamental question…on what basis is it determined that improvements significantly outweigh the declines and who determines that?

            Interestingly, Pew Research did a study on this and found what I would have suspected…”it depends”. Opinion is divided. Americans are split, 41% say life is worse while 37% say better. Half or more in countries ranging from Italy (50%) and Greece (53%) to Nigeria (54%) and Kenya (53%) to Venezuela (72%) and Mexico (68%) say life is worse today. On the other side of the coin, they report that life is better today for some countries, including 65% in Japan and Germany, and 64% in the Netherlands and Sweden.

            So, as I said, this seems to be a more complex issue than your initial statement.

            https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2017/12/05/worldwide-people-divided-on-whether-life-today-is-better-than-in-the-past/

  2. It is indeed complex, but if I am glad that I was not born at an earlier time. Both of my parents were children during the Great Depression and were susceptible to diseases which were cured by my time (smallpox, polio, and some other nasties). A lot more people were starving back then. Now you take something like drug addiction, and I’d say that was for me and many others easy to avoid. People starve to death usually because they get forced into a situation beyond their control, whereas drug addiction is the result of voluntary behavior. I got divorced, but that is actually something that I could have avoided – or at least had a shot at avoiding. And in the long run I found out that I get a lot more done on my own. So it worked out well for me.

    I only hope things don’t go sour with the onset of Covid-19, especially regarding the economy, because I am in fact in a rather vulnerable state in that respect. But I managed to make it to my mid 60s, doing the stuff I wanted to do, and that’s great.

Comments are closed.